The proposal for the gas station, presented by Neil Bingham on behalf of the property owners and developer, met with substantial resistance from residents, who questioned the necessity and impact of such a development in a predominantly residential area. The owners, Allan and Kathy O’Conor, emphasized their attachment to the land and the personal challenges that had led them to consider selling it for commercial purposes. Despite their plea, residents were adamant in their objections, highlighting potential environmental risks, traffic congestion, and the adverse effect on property values.

One of the central arguments against the variance was the risk of soil and water contamination from gas station operations. Residents expressed concern over the potential for fuel spills and the emission of harmful vapors, such as benzene, which could pose significant health risks to those living nearby. Attorney Jeff Aini, representing several residents, argued that the creation of the lot for the gas station constituted a self-imposed hardship and questioned its legitimacy under zoning laws. He urged the board to consider the community’s welfare, asserting, “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck,” implying that the lot was engineered specifically for this purpose.

Traffic was another major concern raised by residents, who feared that the gas station would exacerbate existing congestion and safety issues at a busy intersection near the site. Jim Fitzpatrick, a direct abutter, described the current traffic situation as already problematic and argued that the proposed development would only worsen conditions for drivers and pedestrians. Residents recounted previous traffic studies indicating high crash rates in the area, casting doubt on claims that the gas station would mitigate traffic concerns.

Economic implications were also discussed, with several residents warning that the gas station could lead to a decline in local property values, thereby affecting the town’s tax revenue. Eric Green, a nearby resident, predicted that the proximity of the gas station would reduce property values by 2 to 3 percent, impacting both homeowners and the town’s financial health. The sentiment among the community was that the perceived benefits of the gas station did not outweigh the potential detriments to the neighborhood’s character and quality of life.

There was a strong emphasis on maintaining the agricultural and residential nature of the area, with many expressing a preference for developments that align more closely with the existing community fabric.

As the meeting progressed, it became evident that public sentiment was largely against the proposed gas station. A resident presented survey results indicating that 67% of respondents opposed the project, highlighting the depth of local resistance. Several residents, including those who had initially been open to commercial development, ultimately voiced opposition to the specific proposal, citing the risks to environmental integrity and community cohesion.